CTNF 18/321,910 CTNF 101147 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on October 31, 2022. 23-19 AIA 3. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). 4. Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. Information Disclosure Statement 5. The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on May 23, 2023 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action. Specification 07-29 AIA 6. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the chemical structures of the following list below are of low resolution and difficult to read; see Formulae 2-1 to 2-8 (¶ [00127]); and Compounds 1 to 140 (¶ [00138]); and Compounds ETH1 to ETH32 (¶ [00182]); and Formulae 7-1 to 7-5 (¶ [00194]); and Formulae CY71-5(1) to CY71-5(8) (¶ [00211]); and Compounds HTH1 to HTH40 (¶ [00221]); and Formulae CY201 to CY217 (¶ [00252]); and Compounds HT1 to HT46, m-MTDATA, TDATA, 2-TNATA, NPB(NPD), 13-NPB, TPD, Spiro-TPD, Spiro-NPB, methylated NPB, TAPC, HMTPD (¶ [00261]); and Formulae 301-1 and 301-2 (¶ [00305]); and Compounds H1 to H128 (¶ [00315]); and Formula 402 (¶ [00321]); and Compounds PD1 to PD39 (¶ [00338]); and Formula 501 (¶ [00340]); and Compounds FD1 to FD37, DPBVi, and DPAVBi (¶ [00347]); and Compounds DF1 to DF14 (¶ [00354]); and Compounds ET1 to ET45, Bphen, Alq 3 , BAlq, TAZ, and NTAZ (¶ [00399]); and Compounds CP1 to CP6 and ß-NPB (¶ [00427]); and Schemes of Synthesis Examples 1-4 (¶ [00531]-[00600]) 7. Applicant is requested to review the specification in its entirety to ensure that the resolution of all chemical structures/Formulae are sufficient; not limited to the aforementioned examples . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA 8. Claim s 9, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 reads “…wherein the electronic apparatus isa…” instead of “…wherein the electronic apparatus is a …” Claim 9 reads “… a virtual reality…” instead of “…a virtual reality display …” The chemical structures of Formulae 2-1 to 2-8 of claim 19 and Compounds 1 to 140 of claim 20 have low resolution and are difficult to read. 9 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 11. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. 12. Claims 1 and 10 recite variables R 51 and R 52 but fail to provide a definition. The instant specification also fails to recite a definition for these variables. It is thus unclear how R 51 and R 52 are defined. For purposes of examination, R 51 and R 52 will be interpreted as being any substituent. 13. Claims 2-9 and 11-20 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency upon claims 1 and 10. 14. Claim 14 recites “…the C 2 -C 6 monocyclic group…” but claim 10, of which claim 14 is dependent upon, recites “… in which four or more C 2 -C 6 monocyclic groups are condensed with each other…”. Thus, it is unclear if the “C 2 -C 6 monocyclic group” of claim 14 is only referring to one of the four or more C 2 -C 6 monocyclic groups or if all four or more C 2 -C 6 monocyclic groups must meet the limitations of claim 14. For purposes of examination, the interpretation is that only one of the four or more C 2 -C 6 monocyclic groups is required to meet the limitations of claim 14. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 15. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 16. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA 17. Claim s 10-11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and 102(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by MacInnis et al. (US 2022/0336759 A1; hereinafter “MacInnis”) . 18. Regarding claim 10 , MacInnis discloses the following structure (shown below; ¶ [0204], pg. 207) that reads on the limitations of instant Formula 1 wherein: PNG media_image1.png 333 314 media_image1.png Greyscale M is platinum (Pt); and A 1 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group, A 2 is a substituted C7 heterocyclic group, A 3 is a substituted C5 heterocyclic group, A 4 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group, and A 5 is a substituted C18 polycyclic group; and A 5 is a C18 condensed ring polycyclic group in which two C4 and three C6 monocyclic groups are condensed with each other; and X 1 , X 2 , and X 4 are carbon atoms, and X 3 is a nitrogen atom; and L 1 is “*-O-*“, and L 2 and L 3 are single bonds; and n1 to n3 are integers equal to one; and R 2 is a C 6 carbocyclic group substituted with two R 10a , wherein each R 10a is a C 18 carbocyclic group, and a2 is an integer equal to one; and R 3 is an unsubstituted C4 alkyl group, and a3 is an integer equal to one; and R 5 are unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic groups and a5 is an integer equal to two; and R 1 and R 4 are hydrogen atoms, a1 is an integer equal to three, and a4 is an integer equal to two. 19. Regarding claim 11 , the compound of MacInnis reads on the limitation wherein the metal M is platinum (Pt). 20. Regarding claim 13 , the compound of MacInnis reads on the limitation wherein A 5 is a C18 polycyclic group substituted with two R 10a , wherein each R 10a is a C 6 carbocyclic group. 21. Regarding claim 14 , the compound of MacInnis reads on the limitation wherein the C 18 polycyclic group contains a C 6 monocyclic group of benzene. 22. Regarding claim 16 , the compound of MacInnis reads on the limitation wherein: X 2 is a carbon atom; and the bond between X 2 and M is a coordinate bond. 23. Regarding claim 17 , the compound of MacInnis reads on the limitation wherein: L 1 is “*-O-*“, and L 2 and L 3 are single bonds . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 24. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 25. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA 26. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA 27. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA 28. Claim s 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacInnis et al. (US 2022/0336759 A1; hereinafter “MacInnis”) . 29. Regarding claim 1 , MacInnis teaches organometallic compounds comprising ligand L A (see Formula 1, [Abstract]) and light-emitting devices comprising the organometallic compounds of Formula 1 ([Abstract]). 30. MacInnis teaches a light emitting device comprising: an anode (a first electrode, ¶ [0206]); and a cathode (a second electrode, ¶ [0206]); and a first organic layer (an interlayer) disposed between the anode and cathode (¶ [0206]). 31. MacInnis specifically discloses the following structure (shown below; ¶ [0204], pg. 207) that reads on all the limitations of instant Formula 1 (per claim 1 ) as described PNG media_image1.png 333 314 media_image1.png Greyscale above in the rejection of claim 10 . 32. While MacInnis does not specifically teach the compound of MacInnis in a light emitting device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the compound of MacInnis in the light emitting device of MacInnis, because one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected the elements of the compound of MacInnis and the light-emitting device of MacInnis to predictably maintain their respective properties or functions after they have been combined, and this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.(A). 33. Regarding claim 2 , MacInnis teaches a light emitting device comprising: an anode (a first electrode, ¶ [0206]); and a cathode (a second electrode, ¶ [0206]); and a first organic layer (an interlayer) disposed between the anode and cathode (¶ [0206]); and a hole transport region (comprising a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, and an electron blocking layer; ¶ [0227] and Figure 1); and an electron transport region (comprising a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer; ¶ [0227] and Figure 1). 34. Regarding claim 3 , MacInnis teaches that the first organic layer (the interlayer) comprises the organometallic compound of MacInnis (¶ [0206]). 35. Regarding claims 4-5 , MacInnis teaches that the organometallic compound of MacInnis can be included in the emission layer (¶ [0207]) and can be used as a phosphorescent sensitizer (dopant, ¶ [0240]). 36. Regarding claim 6-9 , MacInnis teaches the application of the light-emitting device of MacInnis in consumer products (¶ [0220]-[0221]; which are necessarily electronic devices and apparatuses as per claims 6 and 8 ). 37. Per claims 7 and 9 , MacInnis teaches a tablet as a suitable consumer product (¶ [0222], which would also comprise a touchscreen layer). 38. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the light-emitting device of MacInnis (comprising the compound of MacInnis) in a consumer product such as a tablet, because one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected the elements of the light-emitting device of MacInnis and a tablet to predictably maintain their respective properties or functions after they have been combined, and this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.(A) . 07-21-aia AIA 39. Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks et al. (US 2022/0271236 A1; hereinafter “Brooks”) in view of Kautny et al. (Kautny, P; Lumpi, D.; Wang, Y.; Tissot, A.; Bintinger, J.; Horkel, E.; Stoger, B.; Hametner, C.; Hagemann, H.; Ma, D.; Frohlich, J. "Oxadiazole based bipolar host materials employing planarized triarylamine donors for RGB PHOLEDs with low efficiency roll-off" 2014, J. Mater. Chem. C, Vol 2, 2069-2081; hereinafter “Kautny”) . 40. Regarding claims 1 and 10 , Brooks teaches organometallic compounds represented by Formula II (¶ [0006]) and light-emitting devices comprising the organometallic compounds of Formula II (¶ [0006], see below). PNG media_image2.png 239 318 media_image2.png Greyscale 41. Per claim 1 , the light emitting device of Brooks comprises: an anode (a first electrode, ¶ [0006]); and a cathode (a second electrode, ¶ [0006]); and an organic layer (an interlayer) disposed between the anode and cathode (¶ [0006]). 42. Brooks specifically discloses the following organometallic compound (shown below; ¶ [0070], pg. 46). PNG media_image3.png 306 348 media_image3.png Greyscale 43. The compound of Brooks shown above fails to read on all of the limitations of instant Formula 1 (per claims 1 and 10 ) as it does not contain a C 8 -C 60 polycyclic group. However, Brooks does teach: that A 1 may be a multicyclic ring structure comprising at least one 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring (¶ [0007]); and R 1 -R 4 can be hydrogen atoms or heteroaryl substituents (¶ [0007]); and any two of R 1 -R 4 and L 1 -L 4 can be joined or fused to form a ring (¶ [0007]). 44. Kautny teaches improved morphological stability ([Conclusion, pg. 2077]) of materials used in organic light emitting devices upon increasing the number of ortho -linkages within a triaryl amine framework (ex. progressively greater stability from triphenyl amine, phenyl carbazole, and indolocarbazole: see Scheme 2 below, pg. 2071; and [Abstract], pg. 2069) PNG media_image4.png 304 1440 media_image4.png Greyscale 45. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the number of ortho-linkages of the compound of Brooks to form an indolocarbazole moiety, based on the teaching of Kautny. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the morphological stability of the organometallic complex, as taught by Kautny. 46. The modified compound of Brooks, in view of Kautny, is shown below with the additional ortho-linkage indicated with a circle. PNG media_image5.png 442 719 media_image5.png Greyscale 47. Per claims 1 and 10 , the compound of Brooks (Kautny modification) reads on all of the limitations of instant Formula 1 wherein: M is platinum (Pt); and A 1 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group, A 2 is a substituted C7 heterocyclic group, A 3 is a substituted C5 heterocyclic group, A 4 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group, and A 5 is an unsubstituted C18 polycyclic group; and A 5 is a C18 condensed ring polycyclic group in which two C4 and threeC6 monocyclic groups are condensed with each other; and X 1 , X 2 , and X 4 are carbon atoms, and X 3 is a nitrogen atom; and L 1 is “*-O-*“, and L 2 and L 3 are single bonds; and n1 to n3 are integers equal to one; and R 2 is a C 6 carbocyclic group substituted with two R 10a , wherein each R 10a is a C 6 carbocyclic group, and a2 is an integer equal to one; and R 3 is an unsubstituted C4 alkyl group, and a3 is an integer equal to one; and R 1 , R 4 , and R 5 are hydrogen atoms, a1 is an integer equal to one, a4 is an integer equal to two, and a5 is an integer equal to two. 48. While Brooks does not specifically teach the compound of Brooks (Kautny Modification) in a light emitting device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the compound of Brooks (Kautny Modification) in the light emitting device of Brooks, because one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected the elements of the compound of Brooks (Kautny Modification) and the light-emitting device of Brooks to predictably maintain their respective properties or functions after they have been combined, and this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.(A). 49. Regarding claim 2 , Brooks teaches a light emitting device comprising: an anode (a first electrode, ¶ [0088]); and a cathode (a second electrode, ¶ [0088]); and a first organic layer (an interlayer) disposed between the anode and cathode (¶ [0084]); and a hole transport region (comprising a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, and an electron blocking layer; ¶ [0088] and Figure 1); and an electron transport region (comprising a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer; ¶ [0088] and Figure 1). 50. Regarding claim 3 , MacInnis teaches that the organic layer (the interlayer) comprises the organometallic compound of Formula II of Brooks ([Abstract]). 51. Regarding claims 4-5 , Brooks teaches that the organometallic compound of Brooks can be included in the emission layer (¶ [0074]) and can be used as a phosphorescent emitter (dopant, ¶ [0067]). 52. Regarding claim 6-9 , Brooks teaches the application of the light-emitting device of Brooks in consumer products (¶ [0081]-[0082]; which are necessarily electronic devices and apparatuses as per claims 6 and 8 ). 53. Per claims 7 and 9 , Brooks teaches a tablet as a suitable consumer product (¶ [0083], which would also comprise a touchscreen layer). 54. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the light-emitting device of Brooks (comprising the compound of Brooks) in a consumer product such as a tablet, because one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected the elements of the light-emitting device of Brooks and a tablet to predictably maintain their respective properties or functions after they have been combined, and this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.(A). 55. Regarding claim 11 , the compound of Brooks (Kautny modification) reads on the limitation wherein the metal M is platinum (Pt). 56. Regarding claim 12 , the compound of Brooks (Kautny modification) reads on the limitation wherein: A 1 is a benzene group; and A 2 is a benzimidazole group; and A 3 is a pyridine group; and A 4 is a benzene group; and A 5 is an indolocarbazole group. 57. Regarding claim 13 , the compound of Brooks (Kautny modification) reads on the limitation wherein A 5 is an unsubstituted C18 polycyclic group. 58. Regarding claim 14 , the compound of Brooks (Kautny modification) reads on the limitation wherein: the 5-membered ring of the C 4 monocyclic group is a pyrrole group. 59. Regarding claim 15 , the compound of Brooks (Kautny modification) reads on the limitation wherein: two 5-membered and two 6-membered rings are condensed with each other; and the two 5-membered ring of the C 18 polycyclic group comprise two pyrrole groups; and the two pyrrole groups are condensed and sharing a nitrogen atom. 60. Regarding claim 16 , the compound of Brooks (Kautny modification) reads on the limitation wherein: X 2 is a carbon atom; and the bond between X 2 and M is a coordinate bond. 61. Regarding claim 17 , the compound of Brooks (Kautny modification) reads on the limitation wherein: L 1 is “*-O-*“, and L 2 and L 3 are single bonds. 62. Regarding claim 18 , the compound of Brooks (Kautny modification) reads on the limitation wherein: R 2 is a C 6 carbocyclic group substituted with two R 10a , wherein each R 10a is a C 6 carbocyclic group, and a2 is an integer equal to one; and R 3 is an unsubstituted C4 alkyl group, and a3 is an integer equal to one; and R 1 , R 4 , and R 5 are hydrogen atoms. 63. Regarding claim 19 , the compound of Brooks (Kautny modification) reads on the limitation wherein the moiety of PNG media_image6.png 320 392 media_image6.png Greyscale is identical to instant Formula 2-2. 64. Regarding claim 20, as discussed above, Brooks discloses the following organometallic compound (shown below; ¶ [0070], pg. 46). PNG media_image3.png 306 348 media_image3.png Greyscale 65. The compound of Brooks fails to include the carbazole substituent in the meta -position with respect to the nitrogen atom of the carbazole of the metallocycle. However, Brooks does teach a positional isomer of the compound of Brooks and does not limit the position of the substituent of A 1 (see below; compound Brooks 2, ¶ [0070], pg. 47). PNG media_image7.png 434 398 media_image7.png Greyscale 66. Given the general formula and teachings of Brooks, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of the compound of Brooks wherein the carbazole group is transposed to the meta -position with respect to the nitrogen atom of the carbazole of the metallocycle. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by the positional isomers of the compound represented by Formula II of Brooks in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as phosphorescent dopant in the light emitting layer of the light emitting device of Brooks and possess the properties taught by Brooks. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II. 67. The positional isomer of the compound of Brooks is shown below, wherein the new bonding position is indicated with a dot. PNG media_image8.png 432 657 media_image8.png Greyscale 68. The positional isomer of the compound of Brooks above also does not read on any of the exemplified Compounds 1 to 140 as per claim 20 . 69. Kautny teaches improved morphological stability ([Conclusion, pg. 2077]) of materials used in organic light emitting devices upon increasing the number of ortho -linkages within a triaryl amine framework (ex. progressively greater stability from triphenyl amine, to phenyl carbazole, and to indolocarbazole: see Scheme 2 below, pg. 2071; and [Abstract], pg. 2069) PNG media_image4.png 304 1440 media_image4.png Greyscale 70. Given the teachings of Kautny, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the number of ortho-linkages of the isomeric compound of Brooks to form an indolocarbazole moiety, based on the teaching of Kautny. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the morphological stability of the organometallic complex, as taught by Kautny. 71. The modified isomeric compound of Brooks, in view of Kautny, is shown below with the additional ortho-linkage indicated with a circle. PNG media_image9.png 433 730 media_image9.png Greyscale 72. Per claim 20 , the compound of Brooks (Isomer, Kautny modification) reads on exemplified Compound 63. Conclusion 73. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandon J. Cooper whose telephone number is (571)272-0005. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. 74. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. 75. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at (571) 272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 76. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /B.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1786 /JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/321,910 Page 2 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/321,910 Page 3 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/321,910 Page 4 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/321,910 Page 5 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/321,910 Page 6 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/321,910 Page 7 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/321,910 Page 8 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/321,910 Page 9 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/321,910 Page 10 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/321,910 Page 11 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/321,910 Page 12 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/321,910 Page 13 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/321,910 Page 14 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/321,910 Page 15 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/321,910 Page 16 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/321,910 Page 17 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/321,910 Page 18 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/321,910 Page 19 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/321,910 Page 20 Art Unit: 1786
Prosecution Insights